Wednesday, February 09, 2005

More Phony Rebels

Tin House, Vol 6 No 2.

We see from this yuppie lit-journal an eagerness to co-opt the real thing. The cover depicts social-revolutionary art with the phrase: "Readers of the World Unite: Twelve Revolutionary New Voices for 2005."
"The Shock of the New" the back cover announces. A glance at the Contributors credits reveals an Editorial Assistant at Paris Review, grads from Vassar, Berkeley, Iowa Writing Workshop, teachers of creative writing, awards and fellowships from Provincetown, Guggenheim, Lannan, Whiting, Chappell, Djerassi, etc etc etc.

There is hardly anything new in any of them. They and their writing are not going to shock anybody-- it's just more of the same. (When plutocrat Rick Moody is on your masthead, you're hardly revolutionary. But go on-- keep debasing language.)

p.s. Inside the issue is a large ad announcing "The Tin House Martini" at esteemed Four Seasons restaurant in New York City. Why do I believe we'll see few revolutionaries there drinking it?

Ooooh, love the SAT words, Anon! But actually, didn't you mean to say that they *are* flagitious potentates. Certainly Castro qualifies, at least?

But seriously, the people you mention actually PUT THEIR ASSES ON THE LINE FOR SOMETHING THEY BELIEVED IN, they actually DID shit, CHANGED things, and were hounded, hated, hunted, and reviled (rightly, it turns out) as a result.

No, what I said, is what I meant.Surely you are aware Marx and Engles never put there asses on the line. For what shall an american put his/her ass on the line for? I admit they are smart, for every revolution becomes a dictatorship at some point. Even amongst the most "pro" working class ideologies, Marx knew the working class needed the Vanguard, for they ar enot capable of governing themselves.

Just because they have managed to become successful does not obviate their ability to speak as they please, in order to satiate some lower class envy. It's amazing the amount of animus people show to the wealthy who are bothering no one, and doing their own thing, so many here want to be them, versus creating something themselves it's sad.

Bothering no one? Other than running this country (and the world) and rigging the rules in every field to benefit themselves! Including the realm of literature. p.s. The ULA is creating something. We just keep growing and growing. To contrast ourselves with our phony opponents helps us stand out.p.p.s. Avoiding becoming like the pigs in Animal Farm (or at The Nation) is one of our primary concerns. The way to avoid the traps that movements like Communism, Christianity, et.al. fell into is to avoid hierarchy, bureaucracy and institutionalizing what we're doing. Just because others have failed doesn't mean everyone has to.

King:Bothering no one? Other than running this country (and the world) and rigging the rules in every field to benefit themselves! Including the realm of literature

Geez it's almost as if "The Jews control the world" not calling you an anti semite, but they do not run the world. If it's not illegal I don't see a problem, you must also remember the people you are attacking are such a diminutive sect, even by literary standards. They are not even truly 500 strong. If it's not illegal I say live and let live, besides it's no secret it happens in every field. However with the columbia competetion mail fraud could have taken place, which is actually illegal, versus say just giving them a deal because you like them.

King:p.s. The ULA is creating something. We just keep growing and growing. To contrast ourselves with our phony opponents helps us stand out.

That isn't surprising all--save for the rediculous, failing movements--are. From street gangs, to pedophile rings.

King:p.p.s. Avoiding becoming like the pigs in Animal Farm (or at The Nation) is one of our primary concerns. The way to avoid the traps that movements like Communism, Christianity, et.al. fell into is to avoid hierarchy, bureaucracy and institutionalizing what we're doing. Just because others have failed doesn't mean everyone has to.

And they all said that. In fact the key is by operating cautiously and not falling into the cliche shibboleth. Personally ULA spends to much time trying to take the spotlight from the "ESTABLISHMENT" which is a sign of either the manque, or simply misdirection. To the people is where you go, that will tell you real quick. I don't know if your bottom barrell is the working class, what about the homeless? I know coming from detroit and living in philly you see enough of them, they can be reached directly face to face. Shooting for the stars versus methodically building is an antiquated almost utopian method.